10 story hole in WTC 7

[Dave Rogers]

Evidence?

The collapse didn't look normal.

I see this a lot in the 9-11 Truth community. I'm not sure whether there's a commonly accepted name for it, but I think of it as the "single-sided inequality". We have two phenomena: (a) the collapse that happened, and (b) the idealised collapse that should have happened, and the argument is that (a) and (b) are not the same. The problem, however, is that (b) is never defined, so the assertion can never be tested.

Miragememories, could you please help us assess the quality of your argument here? Describe the normal way that a 47-storey steel framed tower collapses due to a combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fire, in detail. Take plenty of time, and include as much detail on timings, the direction different parts of the building fall, how much falls inside and how much outside the footprint, and anything else you can think of. Back it up with references wherever you can. When you've done that, we can compare the actual collapse with your account, then determine how different they actually are. If your account is credible, and the differences are sufficiently profound, then I suspect that everyone here will admit you have a point worth investigating.

Dave

 

[gumboot]

I see this a lot in the 9-11 Truth community. I'm not sure whether there's a commonly accepted name for it, but I think of it as the "single-sided inequality". We have two phenomena: (a) the collapse that happened, and (b) the idealised collapse that should have happened, and the argument is that (a) and (b) are not the same. The problem, however, is that (b) is never defined, so the assertion can never be tested.

Miragememories, could you please help us assess the quality of your argument here? Describe the normal way that a 47-storey steel framed tower collapses due to a combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fire, in detail. Take plenty of time, and include as much detail on timings, the direction different parts of the building fall, how much falls inside and how much outside the footprint, and anything else you can think of. Back it up with references wherever you can. When you've done that, we can compare the actual collapse with your account, then determine how different they actually are. If your account is credible, and the differences are sufficiently profound, then I suspect that everyone here will admit you have a point worth investigating.

Dave

Some pictures would be nice.

-Gumboot

 

[volatile]

Some pictures would be nice.

-Gumboot

Or YouTube videos?

 

[Miragememories]

Those requests would be subject to a public hearing before congress. Despite your poorly conceived notions about the federal government, congress does not simply open up the grab bag for funding and resources. They set aside money for NIST, but did not set up a time frame for the response so that NIST could produce an accurate report.

It seems to me that the majority of conspiracy theorists have no concept of how scientific research is done. Congress does not give money to the National Cancer Institute and declare that all cancer will be cured in 10 years. Good science takes time, peer review takes time and accuracy takes time. Thus far, you've offered only arguments from personal incredulity, and yet you have failed to show any capacity to argue on a scientific or technical level. The fact that you think the report is taking too long only highlights your inability to comprehend the nature of scientific research.

Oh please, tell me what inside track NIST had. Also, tell me how they kept this inside track from the dozens of private companies contracted out to do many of the research tasks involved in the NCSTAR. While you're at it, tell me how the independent advisory council whose members included faculty from 2 major engineering universities did not notice this "inside track."

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome. Or do you think they make you look smarter?


Perhaps you could enlighten me. Show me a controlled demolition of a building whose size is comparable to the WTC towers that DID NOT take thousands of man hours.


And yet, arguing entirely from the hypothetical, without corroborating evidence, is a complete waste of time. I could write many pages about how a hypothetical race of pan-dimensional beings brought down the towers, but without proof that said beings exist, the hypothesis is worth nothing.

I've also noticed how you ignored many of the salient points made against you. You whined when R.Mackey did that to you in the NIST thread, and yet you do just that here. I must say, your representation of your arguments thus far has been very poor. You whine, you insult, you make generalizations, you refuse to respond to counter arguments and you have yet to produce any evidence for any of your claims. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to learn about rhetoric and logic by representing yourself like an adult, and produce arguments that don't devolve into name-calling and poorly strung, wildly illogical statements.

In a nutshell The Almond I am but one person and you are part of a gang of bigots who perform tag team assaults on those who do not share your dogma.

There aren't sufficient hours in the day for me to respond to every quip fired at me so I select those that are more interesting or just seem worth responding to. If you don't like that, well just grow a little more weary, I couldn't care less.

Regarding NIST, I'm sure their budget never allowed for 9/11 yet they managed to scrape up the millions to output 10,000 pages of shock and awe.

You also fall back on the same lame tactic that ALL the JREF skeptics resort to when they can't account for the unbelievable. You attempt to impose courtroom rules in a non-courtroom setting. As I've already said, this is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Logical speculation is a legitimate form of discussion.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

mm you have some nerve calling rational objections to your conjecture and nonsense as 'lame'. You don't know what lame is.

Lame is:

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THE BUILDING SHOULDN'T HAVE COLLAPSED THE WAY IT DID.

You have nothing but conjecture, and are guessing what they might have been thinking. The experts were clear: They expected the building to fail at any time. How exactly it would fail, would it fall symmetrically, would it topple over, would it float up into space and turn purple, WHO CARES?

The fact remains that damage, fire, leans, sounds and bulges that were indicative of something bad happening to the building was observed. By LOTS of people. Experts after the fact see nothing wrong with how they collapsed, but do you expect firefighters to describe exactly how the building was to fail?

Your task is to prove that once collapse started, ONLY CD could have caused it to fall like it did. Right now that's of primary importance because your entire theory relies on it. Your theory is a house of cards that will come crumbling down like the WTC7 if you can't prove that CD could only have been responsible more than "I don't believe it".

Frankly, I could care less what you believe. I'm not buying your little ideologically-primed fantasy, and neither are people who actually DO know what they are talking about concerning the subject.

So that leaves us with me, not an expert. You, not an expert. I will defer to experts, you can keep pulling this unadulterated crap out of your posterior. Have fun

twinstead

"How exactly it would fail, would it fall symmetrically, would it topple over, would it float up into space and turn purple, WHO CARES?"

Well obviously with your limited attention span you don't care.

I care a lot. When the unexpected happens it catches my attention and arouses my curiosity. Apparently you lack that facility and are content to be told what to think.

You seem to think there's nothing unusual about a modern 47-storey building performing a high speed TOTAL COLLAPSE from natural causes.

Experts do question this. So far the Official Story doesn't.

MM

 

[Gravy]

Experts do question this. So far the Official Story doesn't.

Yeah, it's infuriating that they never undertook an investigation to attempt to explain the collapse.

Oh, wait....

 

[aggle-rithm]

I saw a "Modern Marvels" episode recently about demolition, and it had a couple of interesting facts:

Fact #1: Bringing down a building with explosives is by far the most rare method of controlled demolition, making up only 1% of the total. The rest are pulled down with cables or dismantled piecemeal.

Fact #2: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DEMOLISH BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY USING EXPLOSIVES. The reason? There is too much infrastructure beneath the streets that could be damaged by the falling debris. The episode showed a controlled demolition of an old Con Edison power station in progress, and said it would take two years to complete. (?!?)

The point here is that it would have taken a conspiracy just for explosive demolition teams to be operating in New York City at all, much less wiring three large buildings without being detected.

 

[twinstead]

Well obviously with your limited attention span you don't care.

You seem to think there's nothing unusual about a modern 47-storey building performing a high speed TOTAL COLLAPSE from natural causes.

Obviously your limited attention span precludes you from getting things through your thick, ideologically addled brain.

I'M not saying I think there's nothing unusual, I, like YOU, am not qualified to judge that. I defer to the experts. THEY are saying it isn't unnatural. So, show me the experts you say think it was unnatural. The preliminary NIST report on WTC7 lays out in EXPLICIT DETAIL how a building can, given the condition of the building--supported by dozens of experts on the ground--and the structure of the building, collapse exactly how it was observed.

If it is so obvious like you say there should be experts, real structural engineers, coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts, as well as shunning all those lying shill engineers who are involved with NIST.

We should work to get those evil structural engineers at NIST disbanded from whatever structural engineering association they are members of.

So get off your high horse, shut down your YouTube computer and get out in the real world and present your rock-solid evidence that the WTC7's collapse could only be caused by CD to law enforcement, or at least to a structural engineering organization. Doesn't have to be American, go to Iran or China, for God's sake. You can lead the charge.

 

[Miragememories]

You actually admit here that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't really look like a classic controlled demolition.
That's remarkable, because the only argument in favor of controlled demolition of WTC 7 I've heard is that it looks so on video. (I assume you don't buy the "pull it" argument.)

But now, we have no reasonable motive, no trace of explosives, no sound characteristic of controlled demolition, and it doesn't really look like controlled demolition either! What's left then?

What I admit is that it wasn't a "classic" controlled demolition and I explained why.

It looked like an over-calculated controlled demolition and in that sense wasn't "classic". A classic controlled demolition would not have allowed collateral damage to the surroundings.

Regarding "pull it", that issue has been argued ad nauseum and I have no new angle to present on it. You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe. All I'll say is that Silverstein said "it" not "them" and it didn't sound like he was referring to firefighters or the firefighting operation to me. Also, it wouldn't have been "his call" as to whether to fight a building fire or not.

We have recorded sound of explosives and we have video of squibs moving rapidly up one side of WTC7 (pressure created squibs would proceed downward not upward). We have a site that was rapidly cleaned up before any kind of forensic investigation could be made.

MM

 

[The Almond]

In a nutshell The Almond I am but one person and you are part of a gang of bigots who perform tag team assaults on those who do not share your dogma.

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome.

There aren't sufficient hours in the day for me to respond to every quip fired at me so I select those that are more interesting or just seem worth responding to. If you don't like that, well just grow a little more weary, I couldn't care less.

Rather, you choose to respond only to points for which your rebuttal allows you to wax polemic about our supposed bigotry and close-mindedness. Posts that request information, proof and evidence are roundly ignored. To the casual observer, this indicates that you simply don't have evidence.

Regarding NIST, I'm sure their budget never allowed for 9/11 yet they managed to scrape up the millions to output 10,000 pages of shock and awe.

I'm glad to see that you concede my point on the matter. Unfortunately, your characterization of it being "shock and awe," however boldfaced, is simply a matter of your poorly conceived, unfounded opinion.

You also fall back on the same lame tactic that ALL the JREF skeptics resort to when they can't account for the unbelievable. You attempt to impose courtroom rules in a non-courtroom setting. As I've already said, this is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Logical speculation is a legitimate form of discussion.

MM

Speculation is a legitimate form of discussion, but it is not a legitimate form of proof. Proof, evidence, logic, and reason are all part of legitimate discussion, yet you seem eminently focused on speculation and implication.

Consider that your reason for arguing here appears only to be to be allowed to write your opinions down. The rest of us are interested in discussion and argument to change minds and opinions. In that case, countering opinion with speculation is a fruitless endeavor. The only way to rationally determine the more truthful position is to compare the reason, the logic and the evidence.

The problem is not that you speculate, but that you expect your speculations and opinions to stand as counter arguments to evidence and reason. Should you wish to continue in this way, I would highly suggest opening up Word, Notepad or some other text program and simply typing to yourself. It would be a lot less frustrating for you, and it would accomplish the same goal.

 

[Mashuna]

What I admit is that it wasn't a "classic" controlled demolition and I explained why.

It looked like an over-calculated controlled demolition and in that sense wasn't "classic". A classic controlled demolition would not have allowed collateral damage to the surroundings.

Your argument for it being a controlled demolition is that it looked like a controlled demolition.

And your explanation for damage to buildings around it was because it didn't look like a 'classic' controlled demolition.

So you're arguing that WTC 7 was part of the New Wave of Impressionist Demolition?

 

[Miragememories]

I see this a lot in the 9-11 Truth community. I'm not sure whether there's a commonly accepted name for it, but I think of it as the "single-sided inequality". We have two phenomena: (a) the collapse that happened, and (b) the idealised collapse that should have happened, and the argument is that (a) and (b) are not the same. The problem, however, is that (b) is never defined, so the assertion can never be tested.

Miragememories, could you please help us assess the quality of your argument here? Describe the normal way that a 47-storey steel framed tower collapses due to a combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fire, in detail. Take plenty of time, and include as much detail on timings, the direction different parts of the building fall, how much falls inside and how much outside the footprint, and anything else you can think of. Back it up with references wherever you can. When you've done that, we can compare the actual collapse with your account, then determine how different they actually are. If your account is credible, and the differences are sufficiently profound, then I suspect that everyone here will admit you have a point worth investigating.

Dave

Condescending crap Dave Rogers.

JREF skeptics never concede a point. That would be a loss of face. They would be immediately ostracized by the rest of their 'back slapping gang' of bigots.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

MM

 

[Belz...]

It's a rarity for buildings to completely collapse, so I guess it's true that they rarely look normal. Other than as a result of being too close to the epicentre of an earthquake, the atomic bombing in Japan during WWII, or suffering controlled demolition, I don't recall any instances of buildings completely collapsing to the ground.

And that is evidence of... what ?

This was hardly a "invite the public" controlled demolition. Obviously they wanted the building destroyed yet they had to hope the belief that fire and debris damage would be acceptable as the cause. Too little demolition and the building isn't destroyed. Too much and it's obviously a man made destruction. So they went with limited overkill which resulted in collateral damage to other buildings and unfortunately for them, still displayed a classic controlled demolition building collapse.

Speculation upon speculation upon speculation. Are you going to provide any form of evidence at one point, or are you just going to keep spitting your own opinon ?

There had never ever been a New York 9/11 incident before! Over 300 brother firefighters lost their lives. I think the surviving firefighters had every right to be in shock.

But to assume that this shock led to this or that speculative result is, well, again speculation.

I said they never once were quoted as expecting a complete collapse. They never once indicated that in all their expertise that they imagined the building might collapse rapidly, symmetrically and into it's own rough footprint.

They also didn't say they expected a controlled demolition. Both my sentence and yours don't mean anything.

I do think that as a result of the horror that they had experienced with the twin towers, that it was quite conceivable that they were more receptive to believing WTC7 was going to collapse then they might otherwise have been.

And they were right.

Learn to read oh pompous one! I never attached any numerical figure to the number of man hours. I've explained in other threads how it would be possible to covertly setup a CD in WTC 1,2 & 7.

And how much time would THAT take, given that they'd have to do it in secret ? Do tell, Ô ignorant one.

 

[Miragememories]

I saw a "Modern Marvels" episode recently about demolition, and it had a couple of interesting facts:

Fact #1: Bringing down a building with explosives is by far the most rare method of controlled demolition, making up only 1% of the total. The rest are pulled down with cables or dismantled piecemeal.

Fact #2: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DEMOLISH BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY USING EXPLOSIVES. The reason? There is too much infrastructure beneath the streets that could be damaged by the falling debris. The episode showed a controlled demolition of an old Con Edison power station in progress, and said it would take two years to complete. (?!?)

The point here is that it would have taken a conspiracy just for explosive demolition teams to be operating in New York City at all, much less wiring three large buildings without being detected.

So I guess your point is that they wouldn't have used proven technology because it was illegal? Good point!

Well that about ends all the 9/11 conspiracy theories right there.

Tsk tsk..it was against the law for heaven's sakes!

MM

 

[Belz...]

Who are these 'experts' that say debris penetrated 90' into WTC 7, ejected the elevators and severed the fuel supply pipe?

Are you asking me to make your claim or to do your research for you ?

It doesn't take an expert or a computer to see which direction the debris came from. [see post# 948]
You're right about tracing the path of debris thru the building. That would be very dificult or impossible.

Then please stop saying that you've done this.

WTC 7 and Bankers Trust are similar. They both have steel frames with large perimeter columns and concrete floors.
WTC 1 and 2 were almost identical straight down collapses.

Key word: almost. Also, 7 WTC and Bankers Trust weren't at the same distance, etc.

Collapses are inherently chaotic. One doesn't produce the same result as the other, even in very similar, practically identical circumstances.

 

[Mashuna]

JREF skeptics never concede a point. That would be a loss of face. They would be immediately ostracized by the rest of their 'back slapping gang' of bigots.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

MM

Yes, you've said that you don't think it looked right.

Did I miss any of the detailed reasoning?

 

[twinstead]

Condescending crap Dave Rogers.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

LOL and you are so quick to concede a point, right?

Frankly I don't care what YOU think because you're no more qualified to make that call than I am. I wouldn't expect anybody to listen to me if I suddenly started claiming the collapse was CD because the building looked 'unnatural' to me unless I had additional corroborating evidence.

Why do you think that what YOU think about it constitutes in any way, shape, or form real evidence that is going to 'convert' somebody? Why do you think anybody who dares disagree with you simply lacks 'sufficient imagination'?

You are so full of yourself.

 

[Miragememories]

Obviously your limited attention span precludes you from getting things through your thick, ideologically addled brain.

I'M not saying I think there's nothing unusual, I, like YOU, am not qualified to judge that. I defer to the experts. THEY are saying it isn't unnatural. So, show me the experts you say think it was unnatural. The preliminary NIST report on WTC7 lays out in EXPLICIT DETAIL how a building can, given the condition of the building--supported by dozens of experts on the ground--and the structure of the building, collapse exactly how it was observed.

If it is so obvious like you say there should be experts, real structural engineers, coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts, as well as shunning all those lying shill engineers who are involved with NIST.

We should work to get those evil structural engineers at NIST disbanded from whatever structural engineering association they are members of.

So get off your high horse, shut down your YouTube computer and get out in the real world and present your rock-solid evidence that the WTC7's collapse could only be caused by CD to law enforcement, or at least to a structural engineering organization. Doesn't have to be American, go to Iran or China, for God's sake. You can lead the charge.

OMG..you've done it now twinstead, you actually conceded that maybe there was something unusual about the WTC7 though you quickly apologize for stopping to 'think' and quickly hand it back to the expert's teat.

If it was so obvious, NIST wouldn't have waffled so long in their response.

"Engineers coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts"..that's too funny. Engineers are remarkable only for their lack of public bravery. They aren't known for whistle blowing and placing their comfortable lifestyles at risk. How many people on JREF use their real names instead of aliases? I rest my case.

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

A courtroom requires more stringent rules of evidence and my hope is that eventually there will be sufficient concern from the people that still think for themselves, to force matters into a courtroom calibre setting.

MM

 

[Mashuna]

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of reasonable doubt. It's reasonable doubt based on the evidence available. It's not just because you personally doubt it based on your lack of understanding.

 

[Miragememories]

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome.

Rather, you choose to respond only to points for which your rebuttal allows you to wax polemic about our supposed bigotry and close-mindedness. Posts that request information, proof and evidence are roundly ignored. To the casual observer, this indicates that you simply don't have evidence.

I'm glad to see that you concede my point on the matter. Unfortunately, your characterization of it being "shock and awe," however boldfaced, is simply a matter of your poorly conceived, unfounded opinion.

Speculation is a legitimate form of discussion, but it is not a legitimate form of proof. Proof, evidence, logic, and reason are all part of legitimate discussion, yet you seem eminently focused on speculation and implication.

Consider that your reason for arguing here appears only to be to be allowed to write your opinions down. The rest of us are interested in discussion and argument to change minds and opinions. In that case, countering opinion with speculation is a fruitless endeavor. The only way to rationally determine the more truthful position is to compare the reason, the logic and the evidence.

The problem is not that you speculate, but that you expect your speculations and opinions to stand as counter arguments to evidence and reason. Should you wish to continue in this way, I would highly suggest opening up Word, Notepad or some other text program and simply typing to yourself. It would be a lot less frustrating for you, and it would accomplish the same goal.

You still haven't learned that reading is more than just looking at the words The Almond. I never conceded your point about NIST and it's budget. I made the point that in spite of the fact that NIST had a budget in place and were not prepared for 9/11, they were still able to find funding for their 10,000 page shock and awe document.

I see little point in moving to the next level of discussion; arguing facts, figures and testimony, when the first level of the discussion has not been settled; justifiable reason for doubt.

Again you are too afraid of upsetting the rest of the herd by agreeing to any of my points that argue reasonable doubt. You escape from forum rules and hide in the courtroom demanding clear proof and evidence.

Regarding my reasons for arguing here. The JREF skeptics seem all too comfortable in the belief in their infallibility and the supposed unassailable truths they worship. Someone has to shake that tree. Maybe none of you bigots will be swayed but maybe potential future converts might get an idea how intellectually corrupt you really are.

Yes I speculate. I make reasoned speculations and I expect reasoned counter arguments. What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating; everything but attempts to invalidate my logical points that support reasonable doubt.

I suggest you take your own advice and start writing to yourself...your favourite audience.

MM